Academically or Intellectually Gifted...2008/01/30 · 1. for academically or intellectually gifted students 2. to implement the plan developed under G.S. 115C-150.7 3. for children

1

Academically or Intellectually Gifted

January 30, 2008

January 30, 20082

Key Takeaways

• Academically or Intellectually Gifted (AIG) funding is calculated as no more than 4% of allotted ADM, regardless of the number of students identified by the LEA

• While funding is capped at 4%, there is no limit on the percentage of students identified as AIG

• Funding supplements other State basic allotments which support AIG students

• Each LEA has its own definition of AIG

January 30, 20083

Purpose/Eligibility

Purpose• Support to LEAs for fulfilling statutory requirement

(G.S. 115C-150.7) to provide differentiated services to students with outstanding capability

• Program funds supplement other basic allotments

Eligibility• Funding

– All LEAs • Services

– Any student identified by LEA in accordance with its Local Plan (required by G.S. 115C-150.7)

January 30, 20084

Allotment Formula• AIG funding is allotted as follows:

1. Funded Head Count• Identify LEA total of classified AIG students • Take lower of:

– Identified Total or

– 4% of LEA’s allotted ADM

2. Funding Factor- Dollars per eligible funded headcount• Set through appropriations process

• Multiply (1) and (2) for a final allotment amount

January 30, 20085

Formula—2007-08 LEA Example

$1,121,236Multiply 4% of Allotted ADM by funding factor for final total allotment to LEA

25,863LEA’s Total Allotted ADM1,0354% of Allotted ADM (statutory ceiling—

LEA identified headcount is above 4%)

$1,083.32Funding Factor set by General Assembly

2007-08 AIG Funding

January 30, 20086

Funding History

Academically or Intellectually Gifted Appropriations

$46.9 $48.3 $50.7 $53.5$58.1

$63.3

$0$10$20$30$40$50$60$70

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

$ in

mill

ions

h

Continuation Expansion Amount

January 30, 20087

Expenditures

Eligible uses:1. for academically or intellectually gifted students

2. to implement the plan developed under G.S. 115C-150.7

3. for children with special needs (with an approved ABC transfer)

4. in accordance with an accepted school improvement plan, for any purpose so long as that school demonstrates it is providing appropriate services to academically or intellectually gifted students assigned to that school in accordance with the local plan developed under G.S. 115C-150.7

January 30, 20088

Actual 2006-07 Expenditures

Academically or Intellectually Gifted

Salary & Benef it s$49.9m

90%

Purchased Services

$1.9m3%

Supplies & Mat erials

$4.1m7%

Equipment$0.3m

0% Ot her$0.1m

0%

January 30, 20089

Expenditures—Cont.• AIG Fund Usage

– Most LEAs spend majority of funds on teachers salaries and benefits

– 17 LEAs spend more than 20% on Supplies and Equipment for items like computer software

• Transfers– FY 2006-07 data

• Only 3 LEAs • Total transferred $567,237 (1% of AIG funding)

January 30, 200810

AIG Identification Issues

• LEAs use multiple criteria to identify students requiring AIG services

– Elementary and Middle Schools• End of Grade Test and Test of Cognitive Skills instruments

most frequently used – High Schools

• Tests less prevalent while self-selection into advanced classes and teacher recommendations most common

• Identified AIG student count varies from 3 to 26 percent

– 111 LEAs have identified more than 4 percent

January 30, 200811

AIG Identification Issues-Cont.

• 2001 Study found that minority students may be underrepresented in high school advanced classes

• Efforts to address the issue include:– Project Bright Idea

• A U.S. Department of Education grant designed to increase the number of under-represented populations in gifted through changing teacher's capacity

• The number of AIG-identified students has gone up 24% in the six participating LEAs

– K-12 Nurturing Programs• DPI has encouraged all LEAs to support programs to

identify promising underrepresented students

January 30, 200812

Key Takeaways

• Academically or Intellectually Gifted (AIG) funding is calculated as no more than 4% of allotted ADM, regardless of the number of students identified by the LEA

• While funding is capped at 4%, there is no limit on the percentage of students identified as AIG

• Funding supplements other State basic allotments which support AIG students

• Each LEA has its own definition of AIG

January 30, 200813

Questions for Consideration

• 4% Cap– Appropriate expenditure level and allowable student

count?

• AIG Identification– Is the lack of a single uniform definition appropriate?– Concern about variation in percentage of identified

students?

January 30, 200814

Improving Student Accountability

January 30, 200815

Comparing Similar Allotments

• Note that DSSF requires spending plan requiring State Board approval

State AllotmentFY 07-08 Funding Targeted Population

At-Risk / Alternative Schools $220,251,092 Students at risk of dropping outDisadvantaged Student Supplemental Funding $69,209,078 Disadvantaged students

Improving Student Accountability $37,762,504 Students performing below grade level

State Allotment Allotment Based OnAt-Risk / Alternative Schools Title I poverty count / ADM

Disadvantaged Student Supplemental Funding% in single parent family

% below poverty line% with parent without h.s. degree

Improving Student Accountability # of students below grade level

January 30, 200816

Key Takeaways• Focused on students performing below grade level

• Per-child funding fluctuates year-to-year

• Final funding amount not known until after start of school year

• Funds can only be spent on below-grade-level students

January 30, 200817

Purpose and Eligibility

• To improve the academic performance of students performing below grade level

Purpose

Eligibility• All LEAs are eligible

January 30, 200818

Allotment Formula• Two basic steps:

1. Determine number of children scoring at Level I or II on grade 3-8 end-of-grade tests

2. Distribute to LEAs pro rata

• Additional funds can be transferred in if ABC Bonuses are below budgeted amount

January 30, 200819

Appropriations History

Source: Department of Public Instruction

Improving Student Accountability Appropriations

$44.8 $45.2

$37.9 $39.1

$50.6

$37.8

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

$ in

mill

ions

h

Continuation ABC Transfer

January 30, 200820

Funding per Student


Improving Student Accountability Dollars per ADM

$282 $300 $301

$146 $159

$427

$0$50

$100$150$200$250$300$350$400$450

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08Dollars per ADM

January 30, 200821

Eligible Uses of Funds

• Funds can only be used to improve the academic performance of students in grades 3-12 who are performing below grade level

• Examples of eligible uses include:– Summer school / remediation– Tutoring– Instructional software

January 30, 200822


• LEA flexibility:– Funds cannot be transferred out of this category– Funds can be transferred into this category

• LEAs have until August 31 to expend funds– Allows expenditure on summer programs

January 30, 200823

Eligible Uses of FundsMany State allotments can be used for at-risk students

• All basic allotments• DSSF• At-Risk Student Services / Alternative Schools• Improving Student Accountability• Limited English Proficiency• Low Wealth• Small County• Children With Special Needs• Career Technical Education

January 30, 200824

Eligible Uses of FundsFederal money can also be used for at-risk students

• For 2006-07 school year, over $650 million:• Title I: $322.6 million• IDEA: $274.4 million• Vocational Education: $21.5 million• 21st Century Learning Community Centers: $20.5

million• Safe & Drug-Free Schools: $5.8 million• Rural & Low Income Schools Program: $4.5

million• Homeless Children and Youth: $1.1 million

January 30, 200825

FY 2006-07 Expenditures


FY 2006-07 Expenditures$45,474,568

Purchased Services$3.7m

8%

Supplies & Materials$10.1m

22%

Equipment$0.9m

2%

Salary & Benefits$30.8 m

68%

January 30, 200826

Key Takeaways• Focused on students performing below grade level

• Per-child funding fluctuates year-to-year

• Final funding amount not known until after start of school year

• Funds can only be spent on below-grade-level students

January 30, 200827


• Should supplemental allotments for at-risk students (At-Risk, DSSF, Improving Student Accountability, etc.) be collapsed to increase simplicity?

January 30, 200828

At-Risk Student Services / Alternative

Schools

January 30, 200829

Key Takeaways

• Product of HB6 (1995) - consolidating 7 allotments into this allotment

• Supplements basic allotments

• LEAs have considerable flexibility in meeting needs of at-risk students– Multiple funding sources are available for At-Risk

students

January 30, 200830

Purpose and Eligibility

• At-risk allotment provides:– Special alternative instructional programs for at-risk

students– Funding for dropout prevention, school safety officers

(SSOs), summer school instruction and transportation, remediation, alcohol and drug prevention, early intervention, and preschool screening

Purpose

Eligibility• All LEAs are eligible

January 30, 200831

Who is Considered At-Risk?Per State Board Policy

“…a young person who because of a wide range of individual, personal, financial, familial, social, behavioral or academic circumstances may experience school

failure or other unwanted outcomes unless interventions occur to reduce the risk

factors.”

January 30, 200832

Who is Considered At-RiskCircumstances Placing a Student At Risk:

- not meeting proficiency standards or grade retention;- unidentified or inadequately addressed learning needs;- alienation from school life;- unchallenging curricula and/or instruction;- tardiness and or poor school attendance;- negative peer influence;- unmanageable behavior;- substance abuse and other health risk behaviors;- abuse and neglect; and- inadequate parental/family and/or school support

January 30, 200833

Allotment Formula• Four basic steps:

1. $500,000 to State Board of Education2. Each LEA given the dollar equivalent needed to hire an

SSO for each high school3. Funds for students in treatment programs (S.L. 1987-

863)4. Of remaining funds

• 50% based on Title I poverty count• 50% based on alloted ADM• Minimum allotment is dollar equivalent of two

teachers and two instructional support personnel ($226,978)

January 30, 200834

Allotment Formula – Step 1

• Limited to $500,000 per year – 0.23% of allotment in 07-08

• Recent initiatives include– Closing the Gap– Rapid Recovery and Project Recovery Courses– Senior Project Training Program– Graduation Project Professional Development and

Project Management Pilot– Military Children

State Board Allocation

January 30, 200835

Allotment Formula – Step 2

• Each LEA given the dollar equivalent needed to hire an SSO for each high school ($37,838)

• Note: LEAs do not have to hire an SSO with these funds– Can use federal or local funds– Local agreements for free services

School Safety Officers

# of High Schools

SSO Salary

Total SSO Allotment

Share of Total Allotment

499 $37,838 $18,881,162 8.57%

January 30, 200836

Allotment Formula – Step 3Treatment Programs

• For 2007-08, $1.4 million– 0.64% of allotment in 07-08

• Six LEAs receive:– Buncombe County $132,802– Guilford County $540,412– Harnett County $132,802– Mecklenburg County $265,602– Moore County $132,802– Pitt County $211,924

January 30, 200837

Allotment Formula – Step 4Remaining Funds

Remaining Funds

Title I poverty count Allotted ADM

50% 50%

January 30, 200838

Allotment Formula Recap• Four basic steps:

1. $500,000 to State Board of Education2. Each LEA given the dollar equivalent needed to hire an

SSO for each high school3. Funds for students in treatment programs (S.L. 1987-

863)4. Of remaining funds

• 50% based on Title I poverty count• 50% based on alloted ADM• Minimum allotment is dollar equivalent of two

teachers and two instructional support personnel ($226,978)

January 30, 200839

Appropriations History


At-Risk Appropriations$220.3

$211.1

$193.4$186.3$178.7$176.1

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

$ in

mill

ions

h

Continuation Expansion Amount

January 30, 200840


• Funding for school safety officers, summer school instruction and transportation, remediation, alcohol and drug prevention, early intervention, safe schools, and preschool screening

• Priority of funds per 2005 budget:– provide instructional positions or instructional support

positions and/or professional development;– provide intensive in-school and/or after-school

remediation; and– purchase diagnostic software and progress monitoring

tools.

January 30, 200841


• LEA flexibility:– Funds cannot be transferred out of this category– Funds can be transferred into this category

• LEAs have until August 31 to expend funds– Allows expenditure on summer programs

January 30, 200842

Eligible Uses of FundsMany State allotments can be used for at-risk students

• All basic allotments• DSSF• At-Risk Student Services / Alternative Schools• Improving Student Accountability• Limited English Proficiency• Low Wealth• Small County• Children With Special Needs• Career Technical Education

January 30, 200843

Eligible Uses of FundsFederal money can also be used for at-risk students

• For 2006-07 school year, over $650 million:• Title I: $322.6 million• IDEA: $274.4 million• Vocational Education: $21.5 million• 21st Century Learning Community Centers: $20.5

million• Safe & Drug-Free Schools: $5.8 million• Rural & Low Income Schools Program: $4.5

million• Homeless Children and Youth: $1.1 million

January 30, 200844

FY 2006-07 Expenditures


FY 2006-07 Expenditures$38,162,064

Salary & Benefits$35.6m

94%

Purchased Services

$1.5m 4%

Equipment$0.1m

0%

Supplies & Materials

$0.9m 2%

Alternative SchoolsFY 2006-07 Expenditures

$163,445,558

Salary & Benefits$120.5m

74%

Supplies & Materials

$8.8m 5%

Purchased Services$33.8m 21%

Equipment$0.5m

0%

At-Risk

January 30, 200845

What is a School Safety Officer?

• School Safety Officer (SSO) and School Resource Officer (SRO) are often used confused

• SSO – “any other person who is regularly present in a school for the purpose of promoting and maintaining safe and orderly schools and includes a school resource officer” (G.S.14-202.4)

January 30, 200846

What is a School Resource Officer?

A certified law enforcement officer who is permanently assigned to provide coverage to a school or a set of schools

The SRO is specifically trained to perform three roles: 1. law enforcement officer 2. law-related counselor3. law-related education teacher

DJJDP – Center for the Prevention of School Violence

January 30, 200847

School Resource Officer Funding

Source: Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention - Center for the Prevention of School Violence, Annual School Resource Officer Census: 2006 - 2007

SRO Funding: 2006-07(total SROs: 778)

State46.9%

Local45.9%

Federal2.3%

Combination4.9%

January 30, 200848

Key Takeaways

• Product of HB6 (1995) - consolidating 7 allotments into this allotment

• Supplements base allotments

• LEAs have considerable flexibility in meeting needs of at-risk students– Multiple funding sources are available for At-Risk

students

January 30, 200849


• Collapse supplemental allotments for at-risk students (At-Risk, DSSF, Improving Student Accountability, etc.) to increase simplicity?

• Bifurcate At-Risk allotment to focus on specific populations?

• Require SSO at middle schools?

January 30, 200850

Comparing Similar Allotments

• Note that DSSF requires spending plan requiring State Board approval

State AllotmentFY 07-08 Funding Targeted Population

At-Risk / Alternative Schools $220,251,092 Students at risk of dropping outDisadvantaged Student Supplemental Funding $69,209,078 Disadvantaged students

Improving Student Accountability $37,762,504 Students performing below grade level

State Allotment Allotment Based OnAt-Risk / Alternative Schools Title I poverty count / ADM

Disadvantaged Student Supplemental Funding% in single parent family

% below poverty line% with parent without h.s. degree

Improving Student Accountability # of students below grade level

January 30, 200851

Public School Building Capital Fund

January 30, 200852

Key Takeaways

• School capital funding is traditionally a local school district responsibility

• The Public School Building Capital Fund is one of few State supports for school capital funding

• Funding is provided from both – Corporate Income Tax

and – North Carolina Education Lottery proceeds

January 30, 200853

Statutory Treatment of Public School Capital• School Machinery Act of 1933

– State assumed most responsibility for current operations while localities retain capital support role

• State Role [115C-408(b)] :“…instructional expenses for current operations of

the public school system as defined in the standard course of study.”

• County Governments:“…the facilities requirements for a public education

system…”

January 30, 200854

Purpose/Eligibility

• Public School Building Capital Fund (PSBCF)– G.S. 115C-546.1 outlines the purpose:

“…to assist county governments in meeting their public school building capital needs and their equipment needs under their local school technology plans.”

• PSBCF allocations are provided only to counties, not to all LEAs– Counties decide how to distribute to City LEAs where

there is more than one LEA in a county

January 30, 200855

Determining PSBCF Funding• 2 Sources for PSBCF funding:

1. Corporate Income Tax (ADM Fund)2. North Carolina Education Lottery (Lottery)

• Determination of Corporate Income Tax resources1. Secretary of Revenue calculates Corporate Income

Tax receipts (G.S. 105-130.3) from the prior quarter– Corporate Tax Rate is 6.9%

2. Of this amount, 5/69 is provided for PSBCF

• What does it mean?– PSBCF revenues are approximately 7.25% of all

Corporate Income Tax receipts

January 30, 200856

Comparing ADM Fund and Lottery Fund

None65%--LEA ADM

35%--“local effort”

40% of Lottery education revenues

Lottery

$1 Local: $3 State

100% by County ADM

7.25% of Corporate

Income Tax

ADM Fund

Required Local Match

Allotment Formula

Funding Source

PSBCF Components:

January 30, 200857

FY 2000-07 PSBCF ADM Fund Revenues

$48.4$43.9

$0.0

$77.9

$97.7

$108.7

$57.2

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

$$ in

mill

ions

**2002-03 Revenues were diverted to the State Public School Fund due to budgetary shortfalls.

January 30, 200858

How Do Counties Access Funding?

• Funds accrue in dedicated accounts solely for capital projects

• Counties apply to DPI to access funding for specific projects

– Application review finalized within 2-4 weeks

• Upon approval, DPI transfers funds to a disbursal account for the project’s duration

– Does not revert

January 30, 200859

FY 2000-07 ADM Fund Project Allocations

$103.8

$42.9

$27.4

$78.7

$91.2

$54.9

$38.3

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

$$ in

mill

ions

January 30, 200860

Expenditures

• Funds can be used for the following:1. Purchase of land for public school buildings2. Planning/design fees3. Construction4. Renovation5. Enlargement6. Repair7. School technology (only “ADM” funds)8. Retirement of capital-related debt service

• Does not support centralized administration, maintenance, or non-school facilities

January 30, 200861

FY 2006-07 Project Allotments

January 30, 200862

Public School Capital Context• County Needs

– 2005-06 Five-Year Public School Facilities Needs Assessment report identified over $9.8 billion in capital needs

• County Bond Issues– Over $3 billion in local bonds passed in FY 2006-07

January 30, 200863

Other State Public School Capital Support• The General Assembly has provided or allowed

for other types of capital support:– State Bond Issues

• 1949 ($25 million and $25 million appropriation)• 1953 ($50 million)• 1963 ($100 million)• 1973 ($300 million)• 1996 ($1.8 billion)

– County Sales Tax expansion• 1983—30% of 0.5 cent increase dedicated to capital• 1986—60% of 0.5 cent increase dedicated to capital• Both are due to sunset in 2011

January 30, 200864

1998-2007 School Construction Costs/sq. ft.

SOURCE: Department of Public Instruction

$148.10$154.85

$92.98$96.23

$91.70

$91.69$96.57$95.59

$113.98

$146.22

$80

$90

$100

$110

$120

$130

$140

$150

$160

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

$ pe

r squ

are

foot

January 30, 200865

Medicaid Swap

• S.L. 2007-323 requires a one-time reduction to PSBCF funding as part of the State’s assumption of certain Medical Assistance Program expenses

• DPI is required to withhold from a County’s PSBCF allotment the lowest amount of:– 60% of the PBSCF allocation

or– 60% of State Medicaid payments

• County must “replace” foregone PSBCF funding with revenues saved by lowered Medicaid costs

January 30, 200866

Key Takeaways

• School capital funding is traditionally a local school district responsibility

• The Public School Building Capital Fund is one of few State supports for school capital funding

• Funding is provided from both – Corporate Income Tax

and – North Carolina Education Lottery proceeds

January 30, 200867

Questions to Consider

• Allocation Criteria– Is it a concern that PSBCF funds are allocated based on

differing criteria?

• Construction Costs Outpacing Corporate Tax Revenues– Should the diminished purchasing power of PSBCF

support be addressed?

January 30, 200868

North Carolina Education Lottery

Funding

January 30, 200869

Key Takeaways

• Proceeds from the North Carolina Education Lottery (Lottery) support four separate education programs

• Lottery revenues have not met projections so actual 2006-07 education distributions were well below appropriation

• Local effort component of school construction formula provides support only to those LEAs over Statewide average

January 30, 200870

Purpose/Eligibility

• Lottery provides support to counties for educational purposes, such as:– More at Four (Pre-K)– Class Size Reduction (K-3)– School Construction (Pre-K-12)– College Scholarships (Postsecondary)

• Eligibility– Pre-K-12 resources provided to Counties– Scholarship funds earmarked for needy students

January 30, 200871

Determining Lottery Funds for Education• Statute set guidelines for allocating revenues:

– 50% for Prizes– 35% for Education Programs– 15% for Administrative Costs (8%) & Retailers (7%)

• It also created a Lottery Reserve Fund– Fully funded at $50 million from 1st year revenues

• Budget office allocates public school program funds to DPI and scholarship funding to the State Education Assistance Authority (NCSEAA)

– DPI and NCSEAA administer Lottery funding

January 30, 200872

Allocation of Education Funding

35% of Total Lottery Revenues

• 50% for More-at-Four and Class Size Reduction– Particular amounts for each activity not specified

• 40% for Public School Construction– 65% based on Average Daily Membership (ADM) – 35% based on “local effort’

• 10% for Scholarships for Needy Students

January 30, 200873

Funding Availability • General Assembly appropriates annual funding

levels for Lottery proceeds– Based on estimates of availability from State Budget

and Fiscal Research

• Use of Education Lottery Reserve– If available revenues fall below the appropriated

amounts, the Governor may transfer an amount from the Reserve to equal the appropriation

• When revenues exceed appropriation– 50% to Public School Building Capital Fund and 50%

to NCSEAA for scholarships

January 30, 200874

2006-07 Appropriations vs. Allocations

$325.6M

32.7 M

130.2 M

84.6 M

78.1 M

FY 2006-07 Allocations

77%

77%

77%

100%

61%

Allocation % of Appropriations

$425.0 M

42.5 M

170.0 M

84.6 M

127.9 M

FY 2006-07 Appropriations

Total

Scholarships for Needy Students

Public School Construction

More at Four Prekindergarten

Class Size Reduction

Education Programs:

NOTE: G.S. 18C-164 provides flexibility between Class Size Reduction and More at Four allocations as long as combined funding total is 50% of all education revenues

January 30, 200875

What is the outlook for FY 2007-08?

$350.0 M

35.0 M

140.0 M

84.6 M

90.4 M

FY 2007-08 Appropriations

Total

Scholarships for Needy Students

Public School Construction

More at Four Prekindergarten

Class Size ReductionEducation Programs:

• Education Program Transfers– 1st Quarter education transfers were $79.9 million– At this pace, total transfers would be $30 million below

appropriation– Lottery public school appropriations are approximately 4% of

all 2007-08 total State public school funding

• Education Program Appropriations

January 30, 200876

Lottery School Construction Funding• Only Lottery program with a two-tiered formula

– 65% of funds distributed by ADM– 35% of funds distributed by “local effort”

• “Local Effort” Funding– Construction funds are 40% of education transfers– % of Lottery total funding: 40% x 35% = 14%14%

• Public School Building Capital Fund– Both ADM and local effort funds distributed through

PSBCF and are subject to most of its rules• Only differences: No required match and funds can’t be

used for technology

January 30, 200877

School Construction FormulaFY 2007-08 Projected Lottery Transfers

• Overall total funding estimated at $350M

• Allocate 40% for construction→$140M

• ADM Funding: 65% of $140M → $91Mdistributed to Counties based on student count

• Local Effort Funding: 35% of $140M → $49M

January 30, 200878

Lottery School Construction--Local Effort Allotment Formula

• Three steps to determine eligibility:1. Determine “effective county tax rate” (ECTR)

2. Compare ECTR to Statewide average and if ECTR> 100% of the Statewide average then LEA is eligible

3. Distribute funds on behalf of all eligible LEAs based on ADM

January 30, 200879

School Construction Allotment FormulaStep 1: Determine Effective County Tax Rate

– What is a Real Estate Assessment Sales Ratio?– Measure of the assessed value of property compared to the

selling price of propertyAssessed Value

Selling Price– Result is a percentage, usually below 100%, as sales values are

typically greater than assessed values

– Why use the Real Estate Assessment Sales Ratio?– Factors in property tax base as well as property tax rates– Does not disadvantage counties with lower tax rates but

property valuations closer to true market value

=

January 30, 200880

Step #1 Continued

– WSAR calculation based on latest year of reevaluation1. 2006: WSAR = 2006 Ratio (Chowan)

2. 2005: WSAR = 1/3 2005 Ratio + 2/3 2006 ratio (Chatham)

3. 2004 or prior: WSAR = 1/6 2004 Ratio + 2/6 2005 Ratio + 3/6 2006 Ratio (Cherokee)

Property WeightedTax Rates Sales

Year of latest AssessmentLEA Name 2004 2005 2006 revaluation Ratio

Chatham County 0.8976 1.0000 0.9753 2005 0.9835Cherokee County 0.9686 0.8188 0.7480 2004 0.8084Chowan County 0.8168 0.7278 1.0000 2006 1.0000

Real Estate Assessment Sales Ratio

January 30, 200881

Step #1 Continued

Weighted Sales

Assessment Ratio

Property Tax Rate

Effective County Tax

Rate=x

Sales Property EffectiveAssessment Tax Rates County

LEA Name Ratio 2006-07 Tax RatesChatham County 0.9835 0.5970 0.5870Cherokee County 0.8084 0.5200 0.4200Chowan County 1.0000 0.5450 0.5450

January 30, 200882

School Construction Allotment FormulaStep 2: Compare LEA’s ECTR to State Average

State Average = Average of all

County ECTRs

% of Effective State AvgCounty Effective

LEA Name Tax Rates Tax Rate Eligible?Chatham County 0.5870 101.91% YesCherokee County 0.4200 72.92% NoChowan County 0.5450 94.62% No

State AverageEffective Tax Rate 0.5760

January 30, 200883

School Construction Allotment Formula

• Calculate Total ADM for all eligible LEAs and divide by available funds to derive funding factor

Step 3: Distribute Funds to Eligible LEAs

Total eligible ADM: 859,729

35% Fund: $49,000,000

Funding Factor ($/ADM):

$56.99=÷

• Chatham County Funding Calculation:

Funding Factor: $56.99

Chatham Cty. ADM: 7,724

Chatham 2007-08 Funding:

$440,227=x• Funding estimate based on Lottery appropriation and is

subject to change if actual revenues fall below this level

January 30, 200884

LEAs receiving “35% Pot” Funding

January 30, 200885

35% Formula Issues to Consider• Local Effort is measured against a State average

– Guarantees winners and losers

• Variability– Data is updated every year– Inclusion or exclusion of a county with high ADM can

produce substantial funding decrease/increase– No hold harmless provision

• Proposed Changes (Introduced Bills)– Distribute all funding 100% by ADM – Use high growth and low wealth elements in formula

January 30, 200886

2007 Legislative Change to Lottery• S.L. 2007-323 Change

– Added flexibility to Lottery revenue distribution, “…in order to increase and maximize the available revenues for education purposes…”

– Commission may set prize percentage over 50% as long as change will increase total net education transfers

EXAMPLE:FY 2006-07 actual: $930M x 35% = $325MFlexible Percentage: $1,000M x 33% = $330MNet Change: +$5 million

**Percentage transferred to education could be lower but provide greater total funding

January 30, 200887

Key Takeaways

• Proceeds from the North Carolina Education Lottery (Lottery) support four separate education programs

• Lottery revenues have not met projections so actual 2006-07 education distributions were well below appropriation

• Local effort component of school construction formula provides support only to those LEAs over Statewide average

January 30, 200888

Questions to Consider

• School Construction Funding– What is the goal of the current funding distribution?– Does formula optimally direct funding to meet goal? – Should other factors such as growth, capacity, or capital

efficiency be considered?– Is a hold harmless provision warranted to address

funding volatility?

January 30, 200889

Funding One LEA per County

January 30, 200890

Key Takeaways

• Would not force LEAs to consolidate

• Potential savings stem from reducing 6 allotments that have a base allotment to each LEA

• Formulas allocating funds solely on a “per ADM”or “per headcount” basis would remain unchanged

• Affects the city LEA and the county LEA

January 30, 200891

174

115

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1960 1967 1973 1976 1983 1991 1994 2007

Year

LE

As

Total LEAs: 1960 - Present

if 1 LEA per county

January 30, 200892

Counties With Multiple LEAs• There are 15 city LEAs in 11 counties:

County LEAsBuncombe Buncombe County, Asheville CityCabarrus Cabarras County, Kannapolis City Catawba Catawba County, Hickory City, Newton-Conover CityColumbus Columbus County, Whiteville CityDavidson Davidson County, Lexington City, Thomasville CityHalifax Halifax County, Roanoke Rapids City, Weldon CityIredell Iredell-Statesville, Mooresville CityOrange Orange County, Chapel Hill-Carrboro CityRandolph Randolph County, Asheboro CitySampson Sampson County, Clinton City Surry Surry County, Elkin City, Mount Airy City

January 30, 200893

Potential Savings

• 6 of 33 allotments contain– a base allotment that is the same for each LEA, and – an allotment that is graduated on the basis of each

LEA’s ADM

• By funding one LEA per county, no county would receive more than one base allotment

January 30, 200894

Potential Savings

• State Board policy provides for a two-year phase-out of base allotments if LEAs merge

Allotment Category - Base Allotments One City LEA Statewide (15 City LEAs)

Central Office Administration 360,000$ 5,400,000$

Vocational Education - Months of Employment (MOE) 280,600 4,209,000

Vocational Education - Program Support 10,000 150,000

Children with Disabilities (Preschool) 53,401 801,015

Limited English Proficiency (LEP)* 27,085 379,190

Professional Development 27,073 406,095

Total 758,159$ 11,345,300$ *Weldon City is not eligible for the LEP allotment; thus the total in the Statewide column reflects only 14 city LEAs.

January 30, 200895

State Allotment Reductions per LEA LEA

Central Office

CTE (MOE)

CTE (Prog Suppt)

CWD (Preschool) LEP

Professional Development

Total Allot Reduction per LEA

Buncombe County $210,000 $140,300 $5,000 $26,701 $13,543 $13,537 $409,080Asheville City $150,000 $140,300 $5,000 $26,701 $13,543 $13,537 $349,080

Cabarras County $210,000 $140,300 $5,000 $26,701 $13,543 $13,537 $409,080Kannapolis City $150,000 $140,300 $5,000 $26,701 $13,543 $13,537 $349,080

Catawba County $280,000 $187,067 $6,667 $35,601 $18,057 $18,049 $545,439Hickory City $220,000 $187,067 $6,667 $35,601 $18,057 $18,049 $485,439Newton-Conover City $220,000 $187,067 $6,667 $35,601 $18,057 $18,049 $485,439

Columbus County $210,000 $140,300 $5,000 $26,701 $13,543 $13,537 $409,080Whiteville City $150,000 $140,300 $5,000 $26,701 $13,543 $13,537 $349,080

Davidson County $280,000 $187,067 $6,667 $35,601 $18,057 $18,049 $545,439Lexington City $220,000 $187,067 $6,667 $35,601 $18,057 $18,049 $485,439Thomasville City $220,000 $187,067 $6,667 $35,601 $18,057 $18,049 $485,439

Halifax County $280,000 $187,067 $6,667 $35,601 $13,543 $18,049 $540,925Roanoke Rapids City $220,000 $187,067 $6,667 $35,601 $13,543 $18,049 $480,925Weldon City $220,000 $187,067 $6,667 $35,601 $0 $18,049 $467,383

Iredell-Statesville $210,000 $140,300 $5,000 $26,701 $13,543 $13,537 $409,080Mooresville City $150,000 $140,300 $5,000 $26,701 $13,543 $13,537 $349,080

Orange County $210,000 $140,300 $5,000 $26,701 $13,543 $13,537 $409,080Chapel Hill-Carrboro $150,000 $140,300 $5,000 $26,701 $13,543 $13,537 $349,080

Randolph County $210,000 $140,300 $5,000 $26,701 $13,543 $13,537 $409,080Asheboro City $150,000 $140,300 $5,000 $26,701 $13,543 $13,537 $349,080

Sampson County $210,000 $140,300 $5,000 $26,701 $13,543 $13,537 $409,080Clinton City $150,000 $140,300 $5,000 $26,701 $13,543 $13,537 $349,080

Surry County $280,000 $187,067 $6,667 $35,601 $18,057 $18,049 $545,439Elkin City $220,000 $187,067 $6,667 $35,601 $18,057 $18,049 $485,439Mount Airy City $220,000 $187,067 $6,667 $35,601 $18,057 $18,049 $485,439

State Savings $5,400,000 $4,209,000 $150,000 $801,015 $379,190 $406,095 $11,345,300

January 30, 200896

Questions for Consideration• Are educational opportunities for children

enhanced by having multiple LEAs?

• Will consolidation create additional problems?

January 30, 200897

Mentoring

January 30, 200898

Key Takeaways

• Paid mentoring is provided for a beginning teacher’s first 2 years in service as well as for 1st

Year Instructional Support personnel

• Most LEAs receive guaranteed State funding to compensate each mentor $100/month for up to 10 months (and $100 for a day prior to school year)

• Legislation allows LEAs to receive a mentoring “dollar allotment” which can be used to hire full-time mentors or support other mentoring activities (23 LEAs)

January 30, 200899

Purpose and Participants

• Purpose (State Board Policy)– “…Quality mentors considered a critical key to success

of beginning teachers…”• Mentoring part of LEA’s efforts to support, develop and

retain beginning teachers• Three-year Beginning Teacher Support Program

• Mentors– Qualified and well-trained teachers and instructional

support personnel • Beginning Teachers/Instructional Support

– Newly certified in first 2 years of teaching; or,– 1st year entry-level instructional support personnel

January 30, 2008100

State Funding • Guaranteed Allotment

– Provides funds to LEA to compensate mentors• $100/month for maximum of 10 months• $100 for serving as a mentor for one day prior to the start of

the school year• 92 LEAs (80%) opted for this approach in FY 2006-07

• Dollar Allotment– Provides LEA the average of previous 3 years of

mentoring expenditures• LEA must submit a plan to State Board for approval• LEA may use resources to hire full-time mentors, provide

staff development or implement other strategies• 37% of FY 2006-07 mentoring funds ($8.9m) spent this way

January 30, 2008101

Program Effectiveness

• S.L. 2007-323, Section 7.17 requires DPI to report to the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on the effectiveness of local mentoring programs

• DPI Report Findings:– Teacher Retention

• 50% of North Carolina teachers who started with no experience leave after 5 years, same as the National average

• Retention of lateral entry teachers improved by 14 percent– Mentee Feedback

• 43% of new teachers report that mentoring is an important factor in staying at their school, but 42% say it is only slightly important or not important at all

January 30, 2008102

Questions for Consideration• Is the two-tiered allotment approach the optimal

method to distribute mentoring funds?

• Should Committee consider expanding mentoring program to create full-time mentors as State Board has proposed?

Documents

Academically or Intellectually Gifted...2008/01/30 · 1. for academically or intellectually gifted students 2. to implement the plan developed under G.S. 115C-150.7 3. for children